4
Preschool Program Quality

THE DEFINITION OF QUALITY IN EARLY childhood education and care has many dimensions, including political and social dimensions, not all of which lend themselves to research and analysis (Bruner, 1985). Views of how and what children should learn at an early age are guided by cultural values that may be so transparent as to be invisible to most of us. Research can, nevertheless, inform the definition of best practice by providing information about the consequences of pedagogy for young children’s learning, development, and well-being. This chapter summarizes research findings from five separate, but somewhat overlapping, literatures:

Studies of preschool programs designed to enhance the learning and development of economically disadvantaged children, including studies of model programs. These programs provide information about effective practices and the potential magnitude of preschool program effects on learning and development for this population.

Studies of the relationship between preschool program quality, or components of quality, and children’s learning and development. These results are drawn both from research on model programs for disadvantaged children and from research on “naturally occurring” variations that compare children’s experiences

Citation Manager

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 128
4
Preschool Program Quality
childhood education and care
HE DEFINITION OF QUALITY IN EARLY
T has many dimensions, including political and social dimen-
sions, not all of which lend themselves to research and analysis
(Bruner, 1985). Views of how and what children should learn at
an early age are guided by cultural values that may be so trans-
parent as to be invisible to most of us. Research can, nevertheless,
inform the definition of best practice by providing information
about the consequences of pedagogy for young children’s learn-
ing, development, and well-being. This chapter summarizes re-
search findings from five separate, but somewhat overlapping,
literatures:
1. Studies of preschool programs designed to enhance the
learning and development of economically disadvantaged chil-
dren, including studies of model programs. These programs pro-
vide information about effective practices and the potential mag-
nitude of preschool program effects on learning and development
for this population.
2. Studies of the relationship between preschool program
quality, or components of quality, and children’s learning and de-
velopment. These results are drawn both from research on model
programs for disadvantaged children and from research on “natu-
rally occurring” variations that compare children’s experiences
128

OCR for page 128
129
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
and outcomes in community programs with different features.
This research provides information about the effects of typical
variations in program quality on the general population of chil-
dren (including, but not limited to, economically disadvantaged
children).
3. Studies of programs for English-language learners. This
relatively small literature is similar to the first two, but it focuses
specifically on the effects of variation in the approach to second-
language acquisition on competence both in the primary language
and in English.
4. Descriptions of exemplary international programs. This lit-
erature suggests features that contribute to program quality, but
provides relatively little empirical verification.
5. Studies of clinical and program interventions for children
with disabilities and the relationship of salient child and family
characteristics to intervention methods. This research confirms
the value of educational, therapeutic, and social services for in-
fants and young children with disabilities.
PROGRAMS FOR
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN
Beginning in the early 1960s, preschool programs were devel-
oped to provide educational experiences to young children grow-
ing up in poverty. These programs sought to improve learning
and development for these children in response to growing
awareness of social inequalities and changing beliefs about the
role of the environment in development. The context for these
new efforts was vividly described by Caldwell and Richmond
(1968:341):
During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s a sure path to ostracism in
the field of early childhood education was to emphasize attendance
at nursery school as an influence on intellectual development. De-
bunking the Iowa studies [conducted at the Iowa Child Welfare
Research Station of the State University of Iowa by Skeels, Wellman,
and colleagues], which demonstrated intellectual gains associated
with nursery school attendance, became a popular sport . . . and the
implication that such an experience could have lasting cognitive
effects was subject to ridicule.

OCR for page 128
130 EAGER TO LEARN
Changing views led to a more positive reconsideration of the
Iowa research (Skeels and Dye, 1939; Wellman, 1940; Skodak and
Skeels, 1949; Skeels, 1966) and other studies (Spitz, 1945; Spitz
and Wolfe, 1946). Theoretical support came from scholars who
built on the work of Hebb (1949) and, later, Piaget. New work by
Kirk (1958), Hunt (1961, 1964), and Bruner (1962) provided more
support for a renewed emphasis on environmental intervention
in the early years. Perhaps no one pushed the environmentalist
view further than Bloom (1964), who argued that development
was most sensitive to the influences of environment during peri-
ods of rapid growth and that half of adult intelligence was devel-
oped by age 5.
The preschool programs developed for disadvantaged chil-
dren in the 1960s and 1970s not only built on this new work but
also incorporated views of theory and practice from a wide vari-
ety of traditions in psychology and education. Despite the pro-
grams’ emphasis on their potential cognitive benefits, most
sought to enhance the development and well-being of the whole
child (Day and Parker, 1977). Especially in the early years, they
had to address concerns that preschool programs might nega-
tively affect social and emotional development by separating chil-
dren from their mothers (Caldwell and Smith, 1968). Research-
ers developed “model” programs specifically to investigate the
potential for preschool education to influence the learning and
development of economically disadvantaged children. Much of
what is known about the nature and magnitude of preschool
education’s influences derives from rigorous studies of these
model programs. Such studies also provide considerable infor-
mation about the characteristics of highly effective programs.
Over the past four decades, many studies have been con-
ducted of the immediate and short-term (one or two years) effects
of programs on the learning and development of children from
low-income families. Both quantitative research syntheses (that
pool estimates across studies and apply statistical tests) and tra-
ditional best-evidence reviews have found that such programs
produced meaningful gains in cognitive, social, and emotional
development during the preschool years (White and Casto, 1985;
McKey et al., 1985; Ramey et al., 1985). Although the studies of
Head Start and public preschool programs have tended to em-

OCR for page 128
131
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
ploy weaker methodologies, these studies indicate that public
programs have been able to produce the same types of immediate
and short-term effects (Barnett, 1995, 1998). Also, public pre-
school programs have successfully provided broader services to
improve children’s nutrition and access to medical and dental ser-
vices (Fosburg et al., 1984; Hale et al., 1990; Barnett and Brown,
2000).
The average size of the immediate effect of these preschool
programs on cognitive development and achievement was about
one-half of a standard deviation; effects in other domains tended
to be slightly smaller (Barnett, 1998). Cross-study comparisons
and a few planned within-study comparisons indicate that the
magnitude of initial effects varies with the intensity and duration
of the program (Ramey et al., 1985; Barnett and Camilli, in press;
Wasik et al., 1990; St. Pierre et al., 1998). The programs with the
largest initial effects on learning and development tended to be
those that provided the greatest quantity of services (operating
for more hours per year and continuing for more years) with high
staff-to-child ratios (e.g., 1 to 3 for infants, 1 to 6 at ages 3 and 4)
and highly qualified staff (Barnett and Camilli, in press; Frede,
1998).
There is some disagreement about the extent to which the ef-
fects of preschool education programs persist (Barnett, 1998;
McKey et al., 1985; Woodhead, 1988; Haskins, 1989; Locurto, 1991;
Spitz, 1986). In many studies—of both model programs devel-
oped by researchers and less intensive public programs—some of
the estimated effects decline over time and are negligible several
years after children leave the programs (see reviews by Barnett,
1998; White and Casto, 1985; McKey et al., 1985; Ramey et al.,
1985). Some scholars have argued that fade-out occurs because of
weaknesses in the schools that disadvantaged children attend af-
ter leaving the preschool programs (Lee and Loeb, 1995). Others
(Herrnstein and Murray, 1994) have concluded that public pro-
grams like Head Start do not improve cognitive functioning, al-
though more intensive and more costly preschool programs may
do so. Close examination of the results from these studies sug-
gests that there are long-term positive effects on children’s learn-
ing and subsequent school success, although the effects on IQ de-
cline over time (Barnett, 1998; Barnett and Camilli, in press).

OCR for page 128
132 EAGER TO LEARN
A substantial body of empirical evidence indicates these pre-
school programs have prevented grade repetition and special
education placements for disadvantaged children over the long
term. A review of over 30 longitudinal studies by Barnett (1998)
concluded that preschool programs serving disadvantaged chil-
dren also produced long-term gains in achievement as measured
by standardized tests. In drawing this conclusion, Barnett relied
heavily on the findings of controlled experiments with sound lon-
gitudinal follow-ups that lost few study participants over time.
The few studies that have examined high school graduation rates
found sizable effects on these as well (Barnett, 1998).
In contrast to the findings for other outcomes, initial effects
on IQ tests clearly disappear over time in the vast majority of
studies. Why this occurs and how important it is are much less
clear. There is considerable controversy about how well IQ mea-
sures intelligence in the way it is commonly understood by the
general public (Sternberg and Detterman, 1986; Neisser et al.,
1995). The lack of long-term gains in IQ, at the same time that
such gains are produced in subject-matter-specific knowledge and
skills and school success, raises similar questions. However, two
of the most intensive programs, which began full-day, year-round
educational child care in the first year of life and continued to age
5, produced very large initial IQ effects and some IQ advantage
that persisted years after leaving the program (Garber, 1988;
Campbell and Ramey, 1993). Even in these studies, the size of the
effect on IQ declines over the years, while the improvements in
achievement and school success do not (Barnett, 1998). It is also
interesting that a similar program, with a primary focus on par-
ents and relatively greater emphasis on social-emotional devel-
opment, did not sustain effects on IQ even up to the end of the
program (Lally et al., 1987).
The programs that researchers developed specifically to in-
vestigate the influence of preschool education on economically
disadvantaged children are a useful source of information about
positive influences on development. These programs have been
found to be highly effective in producing immediate benefits for
children and to produce longer-term effects in at least a dozen
rigorous longitudinal studies. Some of the studies with the stron-
gest outcomes were highly controlled random assignment experi-

OCR for page 128
133
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
ments. Moreover, these programs seem to produce larger effects
than ordinary public programs that have been less well funded
and thus more constrained with respect to quality. These pro-
grams provide models for best practice. In developing these mod-
els, researchers drew on the wide range of theoretical and practi-
cal traditions that have influenced early childhood education in
the United States, going back to Froebel and Seguin and includ-
ing McMillan, Montessori, Dewey, Smith Hill, Gesell, Thorndike,
Freud, and Piaget (Condry, 1983; Spodek, 1991).
Frede (1998) investigated commonalties and differences
among the model programs with evidence of long-term effective-
ness. The models she examined had been subject to outcome
studies at least through elementary school, provided center-based
preschool experiences for low-income children, and included in
their reports written descriptions of their curriculum and class-
room practices (see Table 4-1). Based on close analyses of these
descriptions, the following factors were found to be present in
most programs:
• Curriculum content and learning processes that cultivate
school-related skills and knowledge, with a heavy focus on lan-
guage development,
• Qualified teaching staff who use reflective teaching prac-
tices aided by highly qualified supervisors,
• Low teacher-child ratio and small class sizes,
• Intense and coherent programming, and
• Collaborative relationships with parents.
Detailed descriptions of the curricula used across the longitu-
dinal studies exist for some programs (Bereiter and Engelmann,
1966; Garber, 1988; Karnes et al., 1972; Lally and Honig, 1977;
Miller and Dyer, 1975; Palmer and Siegel, 1977; Ramey et al., 1982;
Weikart, 1972; Weikart et al., 1967, 1978). Data based on actual
classroom observation of the teacher practices are rare, although
Weikart et al. (1978) provide an important exception. On the ba-
sis of the descriptions, Frede (1998) derived several generaliza-
tions about the process and content of the curricula employed by
the model programs.
While classroom interactions are different from those at home

OCR for page 128
136 EAGER TO LEARN
for all children, they were most dissimilar from the home settings
of low-income and minority children (Heath, 1983). At least some
of the time, teachers used a discourse pattern that engages chil-
dren in an initiation-reply-evaluation sequence (Mehan, 1979). As
an example, the teacher might ask, “Which of these do you think
will float in water?” The child replies, “The cork.” The teacher
says, “Let’s see if you are right.” Preschool children also were
introduced to such strategies for remembering as rehearsal and
categorization (Cole et al., 1971; Wagner, 1978).
Although the models differed philosophically with respect to
methods, program content was similar across programs because
to some extent they all drew on traditional kindergarten and nurs-
ery school practices in the United States (Frede, 1998). Typical
classroom activities and materials involved shapes, colors, sizes,
numbers, animals, transportation, prepositions, seasons, and holi-
days. Programs shared a strong emphasis on language. Teachers
provided a model of standard English and a context that provided
opportunities and incentives for children to learn to speak so that
they could be understood, to learn to understand others, and to
express symbolic concepts through speech.
Of course, these model programs also differed in the focus of
the teachers and the program developers. For example, some fo-
cused most intensely on cognitive development, while others fo-
cused more on social and emotional development (Day and
Parker, 1977; Lazar et al., 1977). Despite their differences, the com-
monalties reported above appear to be sufficient to ensure that all
of them produced significant gains in cognitive development.
However, program differences may have produced some differ-
ences in cognitive effects and, to a greater extent, in social and
emotional development. Research comparing these programs
and others developed based on these models has accumulated
over the years and provides significant insights into the impor-
tance of differences among the models.
Questions have been raised about the extent to which the re-
sults from longitudinal studies of high-quality interventions for
preschool children from low-income families can be generalized
to widespread, poorly funded programs (Barnett and Camilli, in
press; Chubrich and Kelley, 1994; Haskins, 1989; Woodhead,
1988). The critics suggest that the public programs are not repli-

OCR for page 128
137
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
cating the quality and intensity of the preschool programs in the
original efficacy studies, and thus the same effects cannot be ex-
pected. Others believe that one preschool intervention is much
the same as the next, and the positive benefits of the experimental
programs studied in longitudinal research will automatically de-
volve on community-based programs. The empirical evidence
supports the former view, namely, that less well-funded public
programs do not provide the same quality of education and re-
sult in smaller benefits for learning and development. Barnett
and Camilli (in press) note that studies of Head Start and public
school preschool programs found smaller long-term effects on
school success than did studies of model programs. Seppanen
and colleagues (1993) found that preschool classrooms for disad-
vantaged children (Title I) did not provide regular activities deal-
ing with mathematics, language, and science and were lacking in
small-group interaction and individual attention. The Cost and
Quality Team (1995) found that the majority of child care pro-
grams provide mediocre to low-quality experiences. These stud-
ies remind us that the quality of specific services provided in pre-
school programs determines the benefits low-income children
will derive from them.
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY AND
CHILDREN’S LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Model Programs
As Frede (1998) makes clear, determining the effects of cur-
ricula or teaching methods on young children is a complex and
difficult task. A number of problems result from the difficulties of
measuring learning and development in young children. Stan-
dardized tests of cognitive ability in early childhood are of ques-
tionable validity (Kamii, 1990). Measures of social development
are problematic, since they often fail to discriminate adequately
among children (Datta, 1983). Different curricular approaches
have different goals; thus different outcomes should be expected,
and comparing the programs on the same outcome measures can
bias findings in favor of one approach or another. The same type
of bias can occur in trying to measure treatment implementation:

OCR for page 128
138 EAGER TO LEARN
the appropriate observation techniques for one approach may fail
to discern important practices or failures in implementation of
another approach.
Significant limitations of many early education comparison
studies make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the rela-
tive effectiveness of different curricula. Rarely are experimental
methods used, which makes generalization questionable. When
random assignment is not used, it is extremely difficult to disen-
tangle the effects of the educational model from family character-
istics that lead parents to choose a program using a particular
approach, child characteristics that lead to the choice of a particu-
lar program that is thought to best meet the needs of the child,
neighborhood characteristics, and other program characteristics
that may be associated with choice of model. Another complica-
tion is that children’s development is influenced by many factors,
children influence their own environments, and development oc-
curs in multiple domains, which may be differentially affected by
particular methods.
Since the expansion of early childhood education that began
in the 1960s, several studies comparing the effects of various pro-
gram models have been reported and reviewed. The comparison
studies were designed to determine whether a program based on
one theory of learning and development was more beneficial to
children’s learning and development than one based on another
theory. Children who attended classrooms using one program
model were compared with children in classrooms using other
models (Karnes et al., 1983; Miller and Bizzell, 1983, 1984; Weikart
et al., 1978). Other possibly important sources of influence on
learning and development, such as teacher-child ratio, class size,
teacher training, and child characteristics, were held constant.
Reflecting the dominant interests of the era, the comparison
studies reviewed here contrasted three basic types of curricula,
which Goffin (1994) describes as direct instruction, traditional,
and cognitive. In direct instruction, the teacher presents informa-
tion to the children in structured, drill-and-practice group lessons
that are fast-paced, teach discrete skills in small steps, and in-
volve frequent praise. Traditional approaches flow from a belief
that children must direct their own learning and will learn when
they are ready, as long as the teachers provide stimulating materi-

OCR for page 128
171
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
population ages 3-5 had speech or language disorders (U.S. De-
partment of Education, 1987), though some more recent estimates
are considerably lower (McLean and Cripe, 1997:350). By ages 3
through 5, children with language delays talk approximately half
as much as their peers (Warren et al., 1984). The DEC recom-
mends that language interventions be considered for all children
with special needs to help improve overall development (DEC
Task Force on Recommended Practices, 1993). In addition, atten-
tion to language/communication is important because nearly ev-
ery disability has a negative impact on the development of lan-
guage and communication skills.
A large body of research suggests the efficacy of language in-
tervention for a broad spectrum of communication disorders in
young children (McLean and Snyder-McLean, 1987; McLean and
Cripe, 1997), though no single intervention can be identified as
best. Since the 1980s, language interventions have emphasized
“naturalistic” approaches (McLean and Cripe,1997), in which lan-
guage learning is incorporated throughout the day’s activities
rather than concentrated in a single block of time, and makes use
of the child’s focus and interests. Incidental or milieu teaching com-
bine more highly structured, didactic interventions with more
naturalistic features; they use the child’s focus, but actively target
specific language skills. Opportunities for the child to use the
targeted language skill are created (waiting for the child to put a
request into words, for example) and the adult responds to the
child’s communication with requests and prompts for further lan-
guage use as well as responding to the intent of the child’s re-
quest. (For additional discussion of naturalistic interventions, in-
cluding mand-model and milieu teaching, see Chapter 5.)
Yoder, Kaiser, and Alpert (1991) compared the effectiveness
of a milieu language program with a more didactic approach and
found that the former was more successful in increasing language
development, but the results suggest an aptitude by treatment
interaction: children who benefited most from milieu teaching
were those who scored lower before the intervention (had less
intelligible speech and more limited vocabulary). Conversely,
those who benefited more from the didactic approach scored
higher during pretreatment.

OCR for page 128
172 EAGER TO LEARN
2. Emphasis on Social and Emotional Skills
Young children with disabilities often manifest difficulties in
establishing relationships with their peers and developing friend-
ships (Guralnick, 1990). They engage less in social interaction
than children of the same developmental level without disabili-
ties (Odom et al., 1990). Gresham (1982) suggests that over time,
poor development of social skills and a lack of support for social
development can cause emotional responses in children that are
as limiting as the primary disability.
Numerous educational and therapeutic techniques have been
demonstrated to promote young children’s peer interactions,
including modeling and observational learning, coaching,
prompting, rehearsal, direct teaching of social strategies, and re-
inforcement procedures (Guralnick and Neville, 1997). Some in-
terventions intentionally involve children without disabilities as
models and as initiators or responders to the social behavior of
children with disabilities. Further, a central feature of many of
these interventions is that the child with disabilities has compe-
tent peers with whom to interact. Greenspan and Wieder (1998)
suggest the importance of interaction with peers without disabili-
ties who can reach out and involve more withdrawn students in
communication and play, and provide feedback when a student
who has a disability does communicate.
There has been increased attention to the environmental and
social context characteristics that encourage peer interaction, in-
cluding the number and familiarity of the children in a social set-
ting (with small familiar groups encouraging interaction), the
types of toys available (those that can be used by more than one
child at a time, or those that encourage pretend play among chil-
dren), and the physical arrangement of the classroom (to encour-
age interaction) (McEvoy et al., 1992; Odom and Brown, 1993;
Sainato and Carta, 1992; Bailey and Wolery, 1992; Quilitch and
Risley, 1973).
While increased attention has been focused in the last two
decades on the importance of social interaction and the develop-
ment of social skills for children with disabilities, the social inter-
action skills that the techniques above support for the most part
have not generalized to other contexts over time (Guralnick,
1994). Guralnick and Neville (1997) suggest that factors that con-

OCR for page 128
173
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
tribute to the lack of transfer include constraints associated with
the child’s developmental characteristics, reputational factors, the
existence of social status hierarchies that resist change, family-
child interaction patterns, and restricted peer networks for chil-
dren with disabilities.
3. Attention to Individual Differences
A theme that pervades this report is the importance of an
adult who recognizes and responds to the child’s individual char-
acteristics and developmental level in promoting learning. For
children with disabilities, this feature of early childhood programs
is particularly challenging and requires specialized knowledge.
The capacity for self-regulation and attention is nascent in all chil-
dren in the preschool years; for many children with disabilities,
that capacity is a far greater challenge. Some children, for ex-
ample, those with certain kinds of cerebral palsy or autism, may
have heightened sensitivity to their environment, including the
degree to which it is loud, bright, active, crowded, or visually
stimulating. Others may not be very aware of changes in their
environment, even salient changes. For teachers to plan mean-
ingful programs, they must understand (a) children’s sensitivity
to environmental stimuli, (b) the degree to which they are readily
engaged by the environment in adaptive ways, and (c) the behav-
iors they use to express their attention, interests, and intentions
(Greenspan and Wieder, 1998).
Circle time for example, a common feature of early childhood
programs, can be particularly challenging to children with de-
layed development of regulatory capacities. On the basis of long
clinical experience, Greenspan and Wieder argue that while a
child needs to learn to attend in preparation for later schooling,
“every task has its developmental sequence. A child cannot re-
late to a group of six until he’s learned to relate one-on-one, and
then to a group of three. To ask him to do so is like asking him to
read without first teaching him the letters.” (p. 405). As Chapter 2
suggests, challenges are key to learning and development, but
adults must be sensitive and responsive to children’s behavior
while promoting those challenges for children (Dunst et al., 1987;
Kaiser et al., 1992).

OCR for page 128
174 EAGER TO LEARN
4. Emphasis on Parent Participation
Parent participation is, as we suggested at the outset of this
chapter, a common feature of quality early childhood programs.
Parent engagement is considered particularly important by many
who work with and study children with developmental delays
(Greenspan and Wieder, 1998; Girolametto, 1988; Camarata, 1993;
Girolametto et al., 1994). Since many children who have disabili-
ties experience delayed development of language and social skills,
parent participation in early childhood interventions can extend
and reinforce the child’s progress in these areas. Several studies
suggest the importance of interventions that are spread through-
out the day (Bricker and Cripe, 1992; McWilliam, 1996; Eiserman
et al., 1992) and are contextually relevant (Drasgow et al., 1996).
Parents are well situated to extend classroom interventions be-
yond the confines of the school day.
Dunst (1985) suggests a central challenge for parents and
caregivers of children with disabilities is one of readability: any
factor that distorts a child’s emotional and communicative sig-
nals will make it more difficult for those involved with the child
to interpret and respond. Irrespective of the category of disabil-
ity, these children are characterized as less predictable in their
interactive behavior, and less likely to take the initiative during
social interaction with their caregivers (Field, 1980). Descriptions
of caregivers’ interactions with young children with disabilities
indicate that they tend to provide more stimulation, be more di-
rective, and take more dominant roles than do those with chil-
dren without disabilities (McCollum and Hemmeter, 1997).
Deliberate efforts to draw the parent or caregiver’s attention to
strategies that will improve the child’s ability to engage and
communicate may therefore be particularly important when the
child is disabled. The goal, as Dunst (1985) explains, is not for
parents to engage in isolated training sessions, but to have the
parents’ usual interaction patterns with their children be growth
promoting.
Several studies suggest the potential of parent involvement.
Camarata (1993) found that speech production improved in chil-
dren with language delays when mothers supplied accurate mod-
els of words and sentences in natural conversation and interac-

OCR for page 128
175
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
tions. Girolametto (1988) found that when parents of children
with developmental delays participated in intervention pro-
grams, they were more responsive to their children, and to the
child’s conversational leads. The children were able to initiate on
more topics, were better able to take turns, and had a more di-
verse vocabulary. Eiserman, Weber, and McCoun (1992) found
that training in therapeutic techniques for parents of children with
speech disorders effectively increased children’s personal and so-
cial skills, their adaptive behavior, and their speech.
While some research suggests parent involvement and train-
ing can enhance and extend the benefits of early intervention pro-
grams, both the quantity and the quality of research in this regard
is limited. Moreover, some research on early intervention for dis-
advantaged children suggests that parent involvement and train-
ing is not an adequate substitute for direct intervention (Ramey
and Ramey, 1998). In a review of studies involving young chil-
dren with communication disorders, McLean and Cripe (1997)
argue that parent-implemented intervention may be differentially
effective in different treatment situations. As a cautionary note,
they point to an intervention that was effective in treating pho-
nology disorders when implemented by clinicians, but not by par-
ents. As in many areas of early intervention research, existing
research suggests a potential, but a second generation of studies
that differentiate characteristics of parents, children, and parent
training and involvement will be needed for a fuller understand-
ing of the features of effective interventions to enhance the effec-
tiveness of parent involvement (McCollum and Hemmeter, 1997).
It is important to note that professionals’ involvement with fami-
lies must be more than just assisting families in teaching their
children or promoting their development. There is an informa-
tive literature that shows other kinds of family support that are
critical to good child outcomes and are unrelated to the issue of
parents as teachers (Dunst et al., 1994, 1997).
Effects of Inclusion
Research on the effectiveness of early intervention for young
children with disabilities has, for the most part, taken place in
programs in which all of the participants have identified disabili-

OCR for page 128
176 EAGER TO LEARN
ties (Casto and Mastropieri, 1986; Shonkoff and Hauser-Cram,
1987). More recently, model programs that are inclusive have
been developed and evaluated. Two points emerge from the re-
search comparing integrated and segregated programs: (a) chil-
dren with disabilities make similar levels of developmental
progress in both types of programs, and (b) children in integrated
programs tend to have more advanced social and behavioral skills
than their counterparts (Buysse and Bailey, 1993; Lamorey and
Bricker, 1993). But like all research on model programs, positive
outcomes may not be generalizable to community-based pro-
grams of lower quality. Not surprisingly, Kontos et al. (1998)
found a relationship between quality of inclusive programs and
outcomes for children with disabilities. However, since many
community-based programs are not of high quality, the effect of
inclusion more generally cannot be assumed; much depends on
the quality both of the inclusive program and of the segregated
program to which it is being compared. In particular, the benefits
of inclusion will depend on the extent to which the teacher has
support from specialists (e.g., early intervention specialists, spe-
cial educators, therapists). What occurs within programs is what
results in outcomes.
In a naturally occurring experiment in London, 36 children
with Down syndrome were studied, half of whom attended gen-
eral nursery or primary schools, and half of whom attended seg-
regated special schools (Casey et al., 1988). Results suggested that
at baseline the two groups were comparable on most measures
(the special schools group was slightly older than the mainstream
group, and girls had higher expressive language scores than
boys). Improvements in both math and reading scores over a 2-
year period were greater for the mainstreamed children than for
the segregated children. The research, however, has the limita-
tions associated with non-random assignment (characteristics of
the districts in which the children lived, the parents who chose to
live in those districts, or the characteristics of other children in the
classroom) were not controlled for. In another evaluation of chil-
dren with Down syndrome, researchers found that the amount of
time spent in integrated settings was not a strong predictor of
developmental progress (Fewell and Oelwein, 1990, 1991).
The research on inclusion has not been refined enough to sug-

OCR for page 128
177
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
gest for which children (by type or severity of disability) it is ben-
eficial in which types of inclusive programs. However, the im-
portance of settings that will develop the capacity of children with
disabilities to communicate and engage socially suggests a poten-
tial benefit of interacting with typically developing peers.
Greenspan and Wieder argue:
“The greatest problem with class makeup is that students are
often grouped with peers who have similar special needs, so, for
example, it is common to have eight noncommunicative, with-
drawn, and intermittently aimless children in one class. Natu-
rally, there will be little interaction among them, so if one spurts
ahead in gestural communication, he will receive little feedback
from his peers. With lack of feedback, the students’ precarious
new ability may be jeopardized. Without being immersed in a
communicative world with children who reach out, interact, en-
gage in pretend play, and speak, the child will not have adequate
opportunities to learn his critical early lessons—to relate, com-
municate, and think” (1998:406).
But whether the potential opportunity created by an inclu-
sive setting is realized will depend on the training the teacher
gets, how much in-class help is made available, how much con-
tact the teacher has with specialists who can give the appropriate
help, how many children the teacher has in class, the materials
available, and, of course, the effort of the teacher to support
inclusion.
Young children with disabilities can be included in social in-
teractions by their classmates. In a study of mixed-age inclusive
classrooms, the frequency of contact (primarily parallel play) that
children with mild to severe disabilities had with their classmates
during free play periods did not differ from the amount of con-
tact that typically developing children had with their classmates
(Okagaki et al., 1998). According to parents’ and teachers’ re-
ports, a majority of children with disabilities who attended inclu-
sive preschool programs had at least one mutual friend (Buysse,
1993).
Young children with mild and moderate disabilities engage
in more social interaction in inclusive settings than in noninclu-
sive settings (Erwin, 1993; Guralnick et al., 1996; Hauser-Cram et
al., 1993; Lamorey and Bricker, 1993). Children with severe dis-

OCR for page 128
178 EAGER TO LEARN
abilities also engage in frequent interactions with typically devel-
oping children in inclusive settings (Hanline, 1993). However, it
is not clear that children with severe disabilities interact more fre-
quently with other children in inclusive, compared with
noninclusive, settings (Hundert et al., 1998).
Young children with disabilities are more likely to experience
rejection by peers than are children without disabilities (Guralnick
and Nelville, 1997). In particular, children with developmental
delays are less likely to have a mutual friend than are children
with mild disabilities (Guralnick et al., 1995). However, even
though children with disabilities are rated as being less well liked
than their counterparts without disabilities, they still engage in
frequent social contact with their classmates in inclusive settings
(Guralnick et al., 1996; Hanline, 1993; Okagaki et al., 1998). There
is some evidence that attending mixed-age inclusive classrooms
facilitates the social interactions of young children with disabili-
ties. Children with disabilities in mixed-age groups are more en-
gaged in conversations than are children with disabilities in same-
age groups (Roberts et al., 1994). Participation in mixed-age
inclusive classrooms also enhances the play of young children
with disabilities (Blasco et al., 1993). The critical point is that if
social interaction, peer-to-peer conversations, social play, and the
other positive outcomes that are more likely in inclusive settings
are desired, then interventions are necessary at the level of the
individual child to prevent peer rejection (Wolery and Wilbert,
1994).
Recently, some attention has been directed toward the effects
of inclusion on typically developing young children. Contact be-
tween typically developing children and children with disabili-
ties in inclusive classrooms increases children’s knowledge of dis-
abilities. Normally developing preschool children in inclusive
classes are sensitive to the limitations associated with physical
disabilities. However, they seem to be less certain about sensory
disabilities (Diamond and Hestenes, 1994; Diamond et al., 1997;
Okagaki et al., 1998).
Young children who have regular contact with children with
disabilities are more accepting of them. Participation in an inclu-
sive classroom promotes young children’s appreciation for diver-
sity and enhances the development of their prosocial skills

OCR for page 128
179
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
(Buysse, 1993; Favazza and Odom, 1996; Diamond et al., 1997;
Hanline, 1993; Peck et al., 1992). Typically developing children in
inclusive classrooms give higher social acceptance to ratings of
hypothetical children with disabilities than do children in
noninclusive classrooms (Diamond et al., 1997; Okagaki et al.,
1998). In a case study of an inclusive, 8-week summer program
with three preschool children with severe disabilities and three
typically developing young children, Hanline (1993) found no
evidence of social rejection of children with severe disabilities by
their peers. In fact, typically developing children tended to be
more persistent in obtaining a response from a child with a dis-
ability than from another peer.
SUMMARY
Even across the disparate approaches used in program mod-
els, some common processes and content are evident. Many of
the programs consciously exposed children to classroom pro-
cesses that differed from their interactions at home, but were simi-
lar to those that they would experience in formal school: whole
class, small group, and individual interactions with teachers.
Early childhood teachers used a discourse pattern, at least some
of the time, which is typical of schooling: the initiation-reply-
evaluation sequence. The preschool children also learned strate-
gies for remembering, such as rehearsal and categorization, since
this is a by-product of schooling in our culture.
The lack of familiarity with school challenges many children
as they move from the home environment into school settings.
The routine activities of school are different from those in most
homes and are likely to differ even more in some minority cul-
tures, placing a double burden of learning on those children
when they enter early childhood settings and schools (Nelson,
1986). Early childhood programs can serve as a bridge for chil-
dren between home and school by providng exposure to the var-
ied interaction styles (large group, small group, one-on-one learn-
ing) that the child will encounter in school.
Even though the programs studied applied different and in
some cases novel theories of development, the content relied on
by most teachers was drawn from that traditional in kindergarten

OCR for page 128
180 EAGER TO LEARN
and nursery school. Consistent across every program is a strong
focus on language. The teachers, most often, provided a model of
standard English, and the programs were strongly oriented to-
ward getting children to talk and be understood, to understand
others’ speech, and to experiment with symbolic concepts
through speech and books. The classroom materials and teacher-
planned activities and discussions involved typical concepts such
as shapes, colors, sizes, numbers, animals, transportation, prepo-
sitions, seasons, holidays, etc. The fact that the activities, pro-
cesses, and content emphasized in the approaches are similar sug-
gests that the broad parameters of early childhood education are
a matter of general agreement.
A review of several strands of research on program quality
suggests that teachers who have higher levels of education and
specialized training, are attentive to individual children, have
fewer children in their care, and use strategies associated with
developmentally appropriate practice generally are more compe-
tent at enhancing children’s learning and growth. This analysis of
the longitudinal studies of experimental preschools and newer
studies of the effects of quality in early childhood education and
care suggests that the benefits of early childhood programs are
related to the interrelated factors of program structure (class size,
the ratio of children to teachers, and service intensity); processes
that help teachers respond to individual children (highly quali-
fied teachers using reflective teaching practice and close relation-
ships with parents); and curricula that serve as a bridge between
home and school.
Promoting the development and addressing the needs of chil-
dren with disabilities is not something a teacher can do alone. It
requires an intervention team, including, for example, speech/
language pathologists, occupational therapists, physical thera-
pists, social workers, or psychologists, which in turn requires care-
ful attention to how the members of the intervention team work
with the teacher and how they carry out their part of the interven-
tion. McWilliam (1996) offers a useful discussion of these issues.
Many of the curriculum practices used in the programs found
to have lasting benefits for children can be seen as strategies that
increased the ability of teachers to recognize and take advantage
of each child’s level of development. Teachers are more likely to

OCR for page 128
181
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM QUALITY
gain the specialized knowledge they need to tailor their teaching
when they work with relatively few children for a long period of
time and when they have a chance to reflect on their teaching
practices. Such teachers are more able to understand the
children’s individual interests, and they can create activities and
interactions to meet them.
Children who do well in school tend to have parents who
have close relationships with teachers and caregivers, reinforcing
the traditional belief in the importance of such partnerships. The
teacher who has extensive contact with the child’s family can bet-
ter understand the child as an individual and have an apprecia-
tion for the contexts in which the child functions, the parents’
aims and hopes for the child, and the values of the child’s culture.
When parents and teachers are teamed in such a collaboration,
the adults can do the work to build consistency in the world of
the child, rather than leaving it up to the child to integrate dispar-
ate contexts.
Program quality has been found to be associated with
children’s developmental outcome. The prevalence of quality fac-
tors—teacher-child ratio and class size, program intensity and
coherence, responses to parents, staff qualifications, teachers as
reflective practitioners, and teacher preparation—in the experi-
mental preschools contrasts with their absence in many of today’s
typical community programs for low-income children. We can-
not identify the ideal levels of each quality factor based on cur-
rent research, particularly as these will vary with the characteris-
tics of the children and goals of the programs. However, it can be
safely concluded that most early education and care programs in
the United States do not approach ideal levels of quality and that
programs designed to reduce the gap between rich and poor in
early childhood educational opportunity are far from optimal. If
early intervention is to live up to the promise of the longitudinal
results, then Head Start, Title I, child care, and other programs
should approximate the standard of quality suggested by the re-
search reviewed here.